What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:00:55 +1000, Timo Nieminen
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Androcles wrote:

"Timo Nieminen" wrote:
| On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Androcles wrote:
| "Timo Nieminen" wrote:
| | On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Androcles wrote:
| |
| | Nonsense, that's simply radar. Use Greenfield's notation, c' = c+v.
| | If the light hits the mirror at c' then it reflects from the mirror
| at -c'.
| |
| | Ooh! Science from Androcles!
|
| Yep, as always. Newton wrote three laws, conservation of momentum
| was one of them.
|
| | Not Ritz's emission theory then. Majorana's experiments (Phil mag 35,
163
| | (1918), Phil Mag 37, 145 (1919)) support Ritz's emission theory over
this
| | reflect at speed of c' relative to the mirror emission theory.
| |
| | (Miller's Michelson-Morley with sunlight dis-supports both of
| | those versions, in favour of c relative to the mirror, a "new source"
| | emission theory.)
| |
| Ooh! Irrelevant drivel from Nieminen!
|
| Experiments that falsify your preferred emission theory in favour of two
| other emission theories are irrelevant?

Experiments that falsify your preferred relativity drool in favour of
Newton's,
Doppler's and Michelson's emission fact are definitely irrelevant!
Read the first line:
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
It says THE emission theory, not Majorana's emission theory or
Miller's emission theory or Nieminen's emission theory or even
Santa Claus's emission theory, so take your bogus straw men and
your irrelevant drivel and shove 'em you know where, Nieminen.

Why not read the rest of the paragraph? How about "But it failed to
account for the fact proved by experiment that the aberration was
unchanged when observations were made with a telescope filled with water"?

Apart from that little problem, all of the major emission theories that
don't include "extinction" in the interstellar medium successfully account
for aberration. So does special relativity. So does the usual stationary
aether theory. It's only dragged aether theories that have trouble with
aberration. (Until water-filled telescopes are introduced.)

So, aberration is useless for deciding between the different emission
theories. So is the standard Michelson-Morley experiment. Why are you
afraid to look at the experiments that do distinguish between the
different emission theories?

What are you on about now? The MMX is a clear case of light moving at c wrt
its source and everything at rest in the source frame. It wouldn't matter
how it is rotated.

Even Einstein's crappy theory agrees with that.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:56:01 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .

| |
| | "For sound, air is the frame of reference." - 14 lines above, you
| | stupid blind ignorant drunken *******.
| |
| | WHAT DID YOU SAY 11 LINES ABOVE?.., you stupid demented ignorant
drunken
| | pommie *******.
|
| f is frequency. **** off, imbecile.
|
| FOR BLOODY LIGHT you incredibly difficult chimp imitator.!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| 14 lines above where I said '14 lines above'....WHAT DID YOU SAY?
|

f is frequency whether for light or sound.!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh wait....
F IS FREQUENCY FOR BLOODY LIGHT, but f is frequency for bloody
sound.!!!!!!!!!!!!
**** off, deranged bloody babboon.!!!!!!!!!!!!

You poor demented pommie engineer.

When you switch on your torch, what aspect of the beam constitutes a
'frequency'?

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:56:01 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
|
| | |
| | | "For sound, air is the frame of reference." - 14 lines above, you
| | | stupid blind ignorant drunken *******.
| | |
| | | WHAT DID YOU SAY 11 LINES ABOVE?.., you stupid demented ignorant
| drunken
| | | pommie *******.
| |
| | f is frequency. **** off, imbecile.
| |
| | FOR BLOODY LIGHT you incredibly difficult chimp imitator.!!!!!!!!!!!!
| |
| | 14 lines above where I said '14 lines above'....WHAT DID YOU SAY?
| |
|
| f is frequency whether for light or sound.!!!!!!!!!!!!
| Oh wait....
| F IS FREQUENCY FOR BLOODY LIGHT, but f is frequency for bloody
| sound.!!!!!!!!!!!!
| **** off, deranged bloody babboon.!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| You poor demented pommie engineer.
|
| When you switch on your torch, what aspect of the beam constitutes a
| 'frequency'?

The periodic alternation of the electric and magnetic fields of the photons,
one from each molecule of tungsten in the torch bulb filament.
**** off, deranged bloody baboon.!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:25:41 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:02:43 +1000, Timo Nieminen

| I don't see how that follows. Where is the moving mirror?
| If there is a speed change of the source, it is the same in both arms.
|
| More important is the fact that the beam passes through a glass plate,
which
| could easily cause the beams to emerge at god knows what speed.
|
| "God know what speed" isn't very scientific. What are the options? What
| are the observable consequences? Do some science!
|
| If you knew anything about science, I would bother to explain.
|
| But to put it layman's language, there is no reason to believe that light,
| which strikes the glass at c+v, exits at exactly the same speed.

Of course there is, you crazy old goat. The colour doesn't change,
and the refraction through a parallel block of glass produces parallel
light. There is every reason to believe that light, which strikes
the glass at c+v, exits at exactly the same speed.

Aha! It is the same colour when it exits!
You are unwittingly agreeing with my 'intrinsic wavelength' theory. Good
boy! Go to the top of the class!

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:34:08 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:56:01 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
|
| | |
| | | "For sound, air is the frame of reference." - 14 lines above, you
| | | stupid blind ignorant drunken *******.
| | |
| | | WHAT DID YOU SAY 11 LINES ABOVE?.., you stupid demented ignorant
| drunken
| | | pommie *******.
| |
| | f is frequency. **** off, imbecile.
| |
| | FOR BLOODY LIGHT you incredibly difficult chimp imitator.!!!!!!!!!!!!
| |
| | 14 lines above where I said '14 lines above'....WHAT DID YOU SAY?
| |
|
| f is frequency whether for light or sound.!!!!!!!!!!!!
| Oh wait....
| F IS FREQUENCY FOR BLOODY LIGHT, but f is frequency for bloody
| sound.!!!!!!!!!!!!
| **** off, deranged bloody babboon.!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| You poor demented pommie engineer.
|
| When you switch on your torch, what aspect of the beam constitutes a
| 'frequency'?

The periodic alternation of the electric and magnetic fields of the photons,
one from each molecule of tungsten in the torch bulb filament.
**** off, deranged bloody baboon.!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, 3 out of ten for that. ...Nobody has ever detected such an oscillation.

So tell us, how might that 'periodic alternation' translate into what
diffraction gratings produce?

On Oct 14, 12:31*am, Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Jerry wrote:
On Oct 13, 10:59*pm, Timo Nieminen wrote:

Experiments that falsify your preferred emission theory in favour of two
other emission theories are irrelevant? Androcles thinks experiment
evidence for and against theories is irrelevant? Ah well, that's the end
of science from Androcles!

If Androcles truly understood Ritz emission theory, I doubt that
he would support it. The reflection behavior is truly bizarre
compared to other emission theories.

He doesn't support it. What he says about the emission theory he supports
is contrary to Ritz theory. Whether Androcles knows that, I don't know.

Interesting to see that there are experiments that support Ritz theory at
the expense of the other major emission theories. (Not just the ones by
Majorana (and others), but some other kinds, too. Panofsky and Phillips
list Fizeau-type experiments among them.) Of course, there are experiments
that support other theories at the expense of Ritz. I can't think of one
off-hand that supports the reflect-at-incident-speed version (which
Androcles supports) over the other emission theories.

Expansion of the universe plus the observation that a reflecting
telescope in space brings all objects in a mixed field to a
common focus is inconsistent with non-reflect-at-incident-speed
versions of emission theory unless
1) expansion of the universe is wrong, and red-shift is not due
to Doppler effect, OR
2) the principle of least action is wrong, and the rule that
incident angle equals reflected angle holds regardless of the
relative speeds of incident and reflected beams, OR
3) a zone of extinction exists around the sun extending thousands
of astronomical units where the speed of light is unified.

Aberration of light plus the observation that all objects in a
mixed telescopic field remain in the same relative position over
the course of a year is inconsistent with all forms of emission
theory unless
1) expansion of the universe is wrong, and red-shift is not due
to Doppler effect, OR
2) a zone of extinction exists around the sun extending thousands
of astronomical units where the speed of light is unified.

Henry Wilson cheerfully discards the big bang theory AND the
principle of least action AND believes in a speed unification
bubble around the sun.

I'm not sure what Androcles believes.

Jerry

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:25:41 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:02:43 +1000, Timo Nieminen

|
| | I don't see how that follows. Where is the moving mirror?
| | If there is a speed change of the source, it is the same in both
arms.
| |
| | More important is the fact that the beam passes through a glass
plate,
| which
| | could easily cause the beams to emerge at god knows what speed.
| |
| | "God know what speed" isn't very scientific. What are the options?
What
| | are the observable consequences? Do some science!
| |
| | If you knew anything about science, I would bother to explain.
| |
| | But to put it layman's language, there is no reason to believe that
light,
| | which strikes the glass at c+v, exits at exactly the same speed.
|
| Of course there is, you crazy old goat. The colour doesn't change,
| and the refraction through a parallel block of glass produces parallel
| light. There is every reason to believe that light, which strikes
| the glass at c+v, exits at exactly the same speed.
|
| Aha! It is the same colour when it exits!
| You are unwittingly agreeing with my 'intrinsic wavelength' theory. Good
| boy! Go to the top of the class!
|
You don't know what a wavelength is, you old fool.

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
On Oct 14, 12:31 am, Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Jerry wrote:
On Oct 13, 10:59 pm, Timo Nieminen wrote:

Experiments that falsify your preferred emission theory in favour of
two
other emission theories are irrelevant? Androcles thinks experiment
evidence for and against theories is irrelevant? Ah well, that's the
end
of science from Androcles!

If Androcles truly understood Ritz emission theory, I doubt that
he would support it. The reflection behavior is truly bizarre
compared to other emission theories.

He doesn't support it. What he says about the emission theory he supports
is contrary to Ritz theory. Whether Androcles knows that, I don't know.

Interesting to see that there are experiments that support Ritz theory at
the expense of the other major emission theories. (Not just the ones by
Majorana (and others), but some other kinds, too. Panofsky and Phillips
list Fizeau-type experiments among them.) Of course, there are experiments
that support other theories at the expense of Ritz. I can't think of one
off-hand that supports the reflect-at-incident-speed version (which
Androcles supports) over the other emission theories.

Expansion of the universe plus the observation that a reflecting
telescope in space brings all objects in a mixed field to a
common focus is inconsistent with non-reflect-at-incident-speed
versions of emission theory unless
1) expansion of the universe is wrong, and red-shift is not due
to Doppler effect, OR
2) the principle of least action is wrong, and the rule that
incident angle equals reflected angle holds regardless of the
relative speeds of incident and reflected beams, OR
3) a zone of extinction exists around the sun extending thousands
of astronomical units where the speed of light is unified.

Aberration of light plus the observation that all objects in a
mixed telescopic field remain in the same relative position over
the course of a year is inconsistent with all forms of emission
theory unless
1) expansion of the universe is wrong, and red-shift is not due
to Doppler effect, OR
2) a zone of extinction exists around the sun extending thousands
of astronomical units where the speed of light is unified.

Henry Wilson cheerfully discards the big bang theory AND the
principle of least action AND believes in a speed unification
bubble around the sun.

I'm not sure what Androcles believes.

Jerry
======================================
Androcles believes only what can proven; that rules out all of
relativity, big bonks, black holes, dork matter, dork energy,
expanding universes or any other crazy impossible **** you
morons like to wallow and speculate in. Androcles knows the
difference between an axiom, an hypothesis and a wild and
silly guess. The light curves of cepheids, recurrent novae
and "eclipsing" variables correlate with light speed being
source dependent and the sources moving Keplerian orbits,
and all you 19th century holy-one-speed-of-light-only-praise-
Einstein-and-Maxwell's-aether believers can kiss my arse, you
are all insane, there isn't a scientist among you.

In article , ..@.. says...

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:02:14 -0500, PD wrote:

On 10/11/2011 5:49 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:50:12 -0500, wrote:


That's strangs, the gratings in the HST are sensitive to the craft's varying
velocity.

Strange though it may seem to you, it's true that gratings are sensitive
to wavelength and not to speed of incoming signal.

You are raving...as usual. You are claiming that the changes in movement of
an orbiting telescope grating somehow affect the wavelength of light...since
they certainly detect those changes.

They certainly change the relative velocity between the telescope and
the source, and that certainly and measurably changes the wavelength.

Diaper you are such an incuarble moron.

The change in velocity changes the in 'wavecrest' arrival frequency, as
shown in my illustration. the wavelength is intrinsic and cannot be affected
by the movement of an observer or his grating.


You'll note that just by changing your movement in your car, the
frequency from a siren fixed to the ground also changes.

HOORAY! YOU FINALLY GOT THE MESSAGE DIAPER! YOU HAVE AGREED WITH ME!


Ans since he makes the analogy to sound, the speed of sound is c + the speed of air so he has now abandoned SR.


Raving? What's raving about what's measured, Henry? Just because it
blows your wee little mind doesn't mean a thing.

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:34:08 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:56:01 +0100, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| | .. .
| |
| | | |
| | | | "For sound, air is the frame of reference." - 14 lines above,
you
| | | | stupid blind ignorant drunken *******.
| | | |
| | | | WHAT DID YOU SAY 11 LINES ABOVE?.., you stupid demented ignorant
| | drunken
| | | | pommie *******.
| | |
| | | f is frequency. **** off, imbecile.
| | |
| | | FOR BLOODY LIGHT you incredibly difficult chimp
imitator.!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | |
| | | 14 lines above where I said '14 lines above'....WHAT DID YOU SAY?
| | |
| |
| | f is frequency whether for light or sound.!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | Oh wait....
| | F IS FREQUENCY FOR BLOODY LIGHT, but f is frequency for bloody
| | sound.!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | **** off, deranged bloody babboon.!!!!!!!!!!!!
| |
| | You poor demented pommie engineer.
| |
| | When you switch on your torch, what aspect of the beam constitutes a
| | 'frequency'?
|
| The periodic alternation of the electric and magnetic fields of the
photons,
| one from each molecule of tungsten in the torch bulb filament.
| **** off, deranged bloody baboon.!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| OK, 3 out of ten for that. ...Nobody has ever detected such an
oscillation.

Ok, 0 out of 0 for that, radio, radar and microwave radiation is well
understood by pommie engineers but obviously not by ignorant ozzie
sheep shaggers with their head up Einstein's arse where they can only
detect ****.
**** off, poor demented deranged bloody ignorant baboon.!!!!!!!!!!!!